One sane man explains YEC, Concordism, and Answers In Genesis in a nutshell.
As a retired linguist, these types of discussions as to whether the sun is a star remind me of similar examples like whether or not a tomato is a vegetable. As lexicographers would say, a tomato is a CULINARY fruit but it is a BOTANTICAL vegetables. That is, it suits the purposes of chefs to include the tomato among the vegetables even while it suits the purposes of botanists to call it a fruit because it is a reproductive product containing seeds. Neither is more “correct” than they other, because tomatoes don’t care what humans call them. Accordingly, tomatoes will continue to do what tomatoes do and be what tomatoes are. The labels don’t change them. Indeed, labels and classifications/groupings are about human convenience.
To state another way: Humans have countless labelling systems which involve groupings of similar things. It is a matter of communication and convenience—but naming does NOT somehow control ontology.
Likewise, to an astronomer, the sun is just another star. But to a poet or a painter, the sun is unique in beauty and significance for human experience. It is clearly “set apart” from stars, which are mere pinpoints in the sky. Indeed, that is how the Hebrew language of Genesis reflects its culture: the sun is the greater light and the moon is the less light—and the stars are far less significant. Nothing erroneous about that. It is a matter of perspective.
By the way, Genesis 1 is clearly not meant to be a scientific treatise, so we can’t make dogmatic arguments that it requires a “separate” creation for the sun and moon versus the stars. The main theme of Genesis 1 is “God made everything” and it uses the literary form of that culture and era to declare that message. The Answers in Genesis dogma on Genesis entails all sorts of anachronistic impositions of modern cultural notions (including scientific ones) on a text from an ancient culture.
My Response:
I am not a linguist. But I have never met a Christian who is one. But they often tell you what words mean. Because they KNOW. Or do they?
David Buddrige says,
I agree (with Reverend Graham) on this point.Genesis isn’t talking about biological life, but rather spiritual life.You can see this by observing that God promised Adam that on the very day he ate of the fruit that he would “die”.The day he ate the fruit, he didn’t (physically) drop dead, but what *did* happen was that he was thrown out of Eden, and lost his friendly relationship with God.Consequently, what “death” *means* in the Bible is to be thrown out of God’s place and out of relationship with God.If “death” means to lose one’s relationship with God, then to be alive means to gain the relationship with God.Therefore when the Genesis creation account says that God breathed the breath of life into Adam, he is describing that moment in history when the biological human creature first became aware of their special relationship with God and the promise of blessing and life with him – if only they would look to God for the definition of good and bad.It is for this reason that Paul could – with a straight face – tell the Ephesians that they were previously “dead”, and had now been made alive in Christ.
Excellent! This is another point where a linguist can tell us how words work.
My take on the subject is the concordists are wrapped around the axel on the topic of death in the world before Adam sinned. But the bible isn’t talking about biological death. it is talking about spiritual death. The concordists actually have a DOCTRINAL DISPUTE with other Christians.